Conference 7.286::digital

Is what I was told when I asked a couple of years ago. Also got a "We're looking
into changing this in the future." - which obviously hasn't happened yet.

						Trace

    
    Society in general creates incentives to have children. Things
    like tax credits, deductions, etc.   The school system is another
    example, in MA your property tax pays for education.  If it was pay
    as you go only the people with money (or careless) would have children.
    
    So, have 15 kids and get 80K$ in extra benifits (school, medical, tax
    breaks, etc)...
    
    Jon

    E.g. here in Germany (assuming you are in the 'public' medical scheme)
    you pay the same no matter how many kids you have (or a spouse without
    income).

   > So, have 15 kids and get 80K$ in extra benifits (school, medical, tax
   > breaks, etc)...
    
    According to a morning new program factoid, a child costs a family
    $280,000 from birth to age 18.    
    
                                            August G. Reinig

    This would seem to go to the heart of the question of how Digital
    decides on the amount to charge the employee for coverage under the
    various options.  There are I am sure a number of factors considered.
    Still, as it stands now it doesn't seem to make sense for a rate to be
    set which disregards the number of people using the service.  Why not
    charge a couple less for coverage than a family of five?  Surely
    Digital human resources has the data on how much it costs the company
    to cover the costs of various sizes of families.  

	RE .5  "doesn't make sense"

	What would lead you to believe that anything about our
	health care system makes sense?

	And while you're at it, why should someone with a spouse
	and 2 children pay as much someone with a spouse and
	6 children?

	Why would any company subsidize its employees' health 
	insurance? They don't subsidize our auto or homeowners 
	insurance.

				John

Of Course...

	Having a spouse opens up the 'possibility' of incurring
	children at any time.

    Think of it this way:
    
    The taxes you pay that support public education are paying for YOUR
    education when you were a child (of course I'm assuming you went to
    public school).  Each of your children will (hopefully) become
    productive, tax-paying members of society some day and then will pay
    taxes to support public education to pay for THEIR education.
    
    				-John

	My Wife works for a health care provider and they let an employer choose the following options

	Single employee
	Employee and spouse
	Parent and child
	Parent and children
	Family

	Each of these options has a different price.  The capability is in the health care market, but digital
	doesn't use it.

	tony

    
    
    RE: .9
    
    Yes, I questioned some of the HMO's at the recent open enrolement
    show in the caf.  Harvard Comunity said they offer more choices
    like just employee and spouse for those of us w/o kids, but
    Digital decided on not offering this as an option to its employees.
    The difference between single and family coverage is $18 per week.
    I wish there was something in the middle for us with no kids.
    
    gb 

>        <<< Note 4308.7 by DASPHB::PBAXTER "Vmsmail: PENUTS::PBAXTER" >>>
>                       -< Children always a possibility >-
>
>Of Course...
>
>	Having a spouse opens up the 'possibility' of incurring
>	children at any time.

    Not true. There are many types of families in the world. Some tend to
    have children, and some don't.

    Lisa

I am married with 4 children.  I think it is ridiculus that an employee
needing coverage for just themselves and their spouse has to pay the 
same that I do.  From what I understand there are a number (most?)
health plans that offer the employee+spouse option.  If there are some
that don't Digital should be able to "influence" them to start offering it.

Dave V

ps. - as far as the taxes rathole - I am against increasing the dependent child
        deduction (at least until the budget is balanced), but,  1996 is an election
        year and the votes have to be bought somehow.

    I had similar questions during the recent enrollment, about Digital not
    opting for a chiropractice rider for one of our (mine!) HMO
    offerings. BENEFITS EXPRESS told me to send mail to USHR @MSO,
    explaining my concern, and they will forward it on to Paul Corneluius,
    the Benefits Manager.
    
    I had no response after sending it to both USHR @MSO, and to Paul
    directly.
    
    

    I agree that that I should pay more because I have kids than
    people without them.  Also, when you find out you have cancer,
    kidney disease, gall stones, or heart trouble, your insurance should
    immediately start to climb as you will be a burden to my insurance
    company.  
    
    This is a tired argument, one that we seem to go through this 
    time of year.  Remember, one heart bypass will pay for a lot of
    children getting checkups...

    
    I don't really think that just because you have 4 kids that you are
    automatically going to incur more bills to your health care provider.
    I was in the service for 9 years, only went to the docta 2 or three
    times, didn't cost the Military a dime.
    
    I've worked for this company almost 10 years.  Had two kids coming into
    the company, that is, the births were already paid for.  My kids have
    gone to the docta once a year for checkups, nothing else.  What does
    that cost, $50-100 a year or so each.  Otherwise no bills to the HMO,
    and they get $15 a week from me plus what DEC contributes.  Sounds like
    the HMO is making money offa me.
    
    Probably the really fair thing, is that when you get sick and start to
    incur bills, then your premiums will go up, just like the automobile
    insurance business.
    
    Maybe we should base the health care rates on family histories of 
    diseases, on how long relatives have lived (living longer will cost the
    HMO more money, right, on whether or not you are into risky activities
    (Motorcycling, one night stands), etc.
    
    I just don't buy that the argument that if you have more kids it
    automatically costs the HMO more money.
    
    And I can betcha that if there was a graduated price/children scale,
    that the childless couples rates wouldn't go down from what they are
    now, but that the couples with more kids would have their premiums 
    increase.
    
    Just my $.02
    
    /art

    Continuing the rathole, I see no problem with making rates a function
    of voluntary behavior that's detremental.  Car insurance rates
    should be higher for people involved in at-fault accidents.  Health
    insurance rates should be higher for people who smoke.  Dependent
    insurance should be higher for people with more than two kids (based
    on the environmental pressures of > replacement offspring.)  Etc.
    
    Developing some random illness doesn't fall into the above category
    unless the person voluntarily predisposes him or herself to
    it.
    

    So if I smoke, I should pay higher rates because I may (someday)
    develop lung cancer, but don't - say, perhaps, I actually develop, oh,
    I don't know -- uterine cancer or some other form *not* linked to
    smoking.  I paid higher rates based on a *possibility*, one that is not
    consistently going to come to pass, same as the married folks who 
    now pay more because they *may* have children someday?!  I don't think
    that's fair, either.  That leaves you open to saying that the insurance
    company can charge more for my kids, too, because they live with a
    smoker, even though they are both basically healthy children.
    
    BTW, I basically do agree that rates should be based upon
    the categories of employee-only, employee & spouse, employee &
    child/children (for our single parent population!), and full family (
    for our traditional compadres...).  Of course, I've also always thought
    that we should be able to bring a dependent elder parent who is not 
    yet eligible for Medicare into our family insurance plans, but that's 
    another rathole.
    
    M.
    

    No, I don't think married people should be zapped with higher rates
    because they "might" have children in the future.  If they do
    have children, then the rates should go up.  And, yes, health insurance
    for dependents who live with a smoker should be higher, because they
    have a higher risk of developing cancer and other diseases due to
    second-hand smoke.
    

re .17

>    So if I smoke, I should pay higher rates because I may (someday)
>    develop lung cancer, but don't - say, perhaps, I actually develop, oh,
>    I don't know -- uterine cancer or some other form *not* linked to
>    smoking.  I paid higher rates based on a *possibility*, one that is not

Where have you been?  What makes you think it isn't related to smoking?  I 
personally think it'd be easier to rassle an alligator than to make all the 
assigned risk changes mentioned in this thread, but don't kid yourself -- 
smoking causes cancer -- and not just lung cancer.  Words from one of my 
customers who is an oncology nurse, "If you smoke, quit now!!"

			SQ

    In a sense, this entire string deviates from the whole notion of
    insurance - sharing the risk.  If everyone's premium was exactly in
    proportion to the expected payout, then there is no point in having
    insurance at all.
    
    Larry
    

    re .20: Exactly what I was going to say... the whole idea of insurance
    is to collectively (doesn't that sound almost like communism? :-) cover
    risks that an individual (at least potentially) can't cover.
    
    If you haven't had a car accident in years, you are paying for those
    who did. If you don't get ill, you are paying for those who do. But if
    you _do_ get seriously ill, even the contributions you've already paid,
    possibly over decades, won't be enough.

    I think the last two are missing the point, we should all pay our fair 
    share but souldn't an individual pay one amount and a group of say 3 
    people pay three times that amount? 

Are costs different for men and women.  It might make sense to pay differently depending
on the sex of the person covered.

    re .22: I was referring to the suggestions that higher risk groups
    (like smokers in case of medical insurance) should be charged a higher
    price, up to the expected costs they will incur - there would be no
    need for insurance in that case. Of course, it's still practiced in
    many cases, lice car insurance - in most countries, new drivers pay
    more than more experienced drivers (assuming they have cause no
    accidents).
    
    Whether an individual or a family should or should not pay the same
    amount is a different thing - as I said, in Germany they do, but that
    has more to do with politics than finances.

    And then of course you need to factor age in...
    
    And genetic pre-disposition to various diseases...
    
    And ...
    
    Of course the ultimate in 'fairness' would be for folk to pay
    for only exactly the costs what they incur...
    
    Sheesh!

    RE: .22
    
    >> I think the last two are missing the point, we should all pay our fair 
    >> share but souldn't an individual pay one amount and a group of say 3 
    >> people pay three times that amount? 
    
    When you put it that way, the answer of course is yes.  However, as has
    been pointed out, there are other -- possibly more meaningful --
    factors that effect medical costs than number of people covered.  And
    in some sense, Digital already does this since there are different
    rates for an individual and multiple people (family).
    
    Having said this, I think that there could be some improvement in
    granularity.  I would support having a third category, Employee and
    Spouse Only.  Although this wouldn't satisfy everyone, I think it would
    affect a significant enough number of people to make it worthwhile
    without getting overly complicated.
    

    Re: are costs different for men and women
    
    Well, I looked into ACM insurance as an opt out possibility,
    and they sock it to women up to the age of fifty or so to the
    tune of 2 or 3 times the premiums for men.  Whether this reflects
    costs, belief that we're all producing children, or what, I have no
    idea.  You might expect things to be reversed as people get older,
    given the differences in life expectancies, but it's quite
    minor in terms of their premiums.
    

    Isn't Individual/+Spouse/Family granularity a bit parochial?
    I thought single-parent households were fairly common now-a-days...
    
    Re: differant size groups paying differant amounts
    
    How about selecting a large group size, say the population of Digital
    employees, and dividing the cost equally across it. Hmmm... 
    
    Dave

    	On the surface, the argument makes sense, but following through
    with it is a different story. As was mentioned, having a family increases 
    your financial burden. Raising the financial burden even more on those 
    less able to handle it will only result in less people being insured. This 
    is already a (if not the) key problem in the health industry today. 
    
    	Ever wonder why those 2 Tylenol you got at your last hospital stay
    cost so much ? When a health care provider provides care for an uninsured 
    person, and that person can't or doesn't pay, the provider rolls that into 
    the cost of doing business. This raises the fees on services for everyone 
    else that does pay, to compensate. This consequently drives up the cost of 
    health care premiums.
    
    	So one can say, "Make so-and-so pay more so that the rest of us 
    young/healthy/single people can pay less". Then, as even more people drop 
    their insurance because they can't afford it, guess who ultimately pays for 
    this ? Something that has the potential to create more uninsured people 
    is definitely not what we need right now.
    
    	Ray

    The health care industry is the biggest racket going - bar none - the
    reason those two Tylonel cost so much - has everything to do with the
    obscene profits being made by HMO's at the expense of the patient and
    the medical community - 
    
    Example #1:
    My husbands insurance company most expensive,
    least FUNCTIONAL and least favored option is an HMO - his insurance
    company sends out memos to their employees suggesting that HMO's provide
    inferior coverage in general - his company offers our John Hancock Plan 2
    equivalent ( its actually better) at the price we offer straight AV-MED
    - and "suggests" to their employees that the reason some Large Employers
    use one HMO over the other is that some Large Employers are paid a KICK
    BACK by that HMO provider - so both the HMO and the Large Employer
    benefit  - at the expense of the employee.
    
    Example #2:
    Most hospitals are now forcing their nursing staff to
    work overtime - whether they want to or not? The reason - they
    deliberately cut staff to the bare minimum to "right size" - but then
    can't afford to increase staff when the number of patients increase - 
    again who pays - the patient - 
    
    It has gotten so bad the doctors are complaining.
    
    Look at the annual reports of the Health Care comglomerates
    and remember - those profits are literally coming out of the blood,
    pain and suffering of you and your families - 
    
    Its sadly that plain and simple - 

    Now let me get this straight.  I'm single and I work for mother
    Digital.  They pick up most of the tab for my medical care, I kick in
    what is basically a rounding error per week out of my checkbook to
    cover my share.  (Who says it doesn't pay to be single!)  Now, I think
    about getting married and will want to bring my wife to be onto my plan
    thus driving up my costs per week by 433%.  Hmmmm whats wrong with this
    picture?  All I have done is added one person to my life but now my HMO
    thinks I have to pay the cost for an entire family?  Somethings wrong
    here folks if you ask me above and beyond I'm still looking for the
    wife to be!
    
    

>    idea.  You might expect things to be reversed as people get older,
>    given the differences in life expectancies, but it's quite
>    minor in terms of their premiums.
 
      Greater life expectancy might actually increase costs. Medical
    treatment is only expensive for sick people, not dead ones (unless
    there is a malpractice suit because they died as a result of their
    treatment). I have heard it stated that this country (UK) could not
    afford for all smokers to give up the habit. Not only would the tax
    money be lost, but all those smokers living longer would cost a fortune
    both in extra old age pensions and health care for other illnesses;
    often much longer term illnesses than cancer or heart disease.
    
      Isn't something like a third of all medical expenditure in the USA
    incurred in the last three weeks of life? If true, this suggests that
    an awful lot of treatment is either a)completely useless or b)only
    postponing the inevitable by a short time at great cost to somebody,
    and great profit to the providers. It also suggests that children, who
    have a very low death rate, might not on _average_ cost a great deal to
    provide cover for.
    
    Ken

    
    One must keep in mind that insurance companies keep very
    detailed tables of the effect lifestyle choices have on
    costs.  I suspect that overall, for family coverage, the
    least cost/person covered is within the "traditional" family
    unit.  Many studies point to the positive influence on 
    health of marriage and children.
    
    Of course, those whom decide these things may have looked at
    how much rates would go up for those with children and decided
    against a separate rate.  Perhaps most of the decison makers
    are married with children?
    
    OBTW, to the reply that characterized HMO's as greedy, only-in-it-
    for-the-bucks.  Don't you think things would work much more
    smoothly, if we could all understand that people just like us
    work in those 'other' companies.  There is FAR too much 
    us-vs-them in the public's mindset, I'm afraid.
    

    Digital Netherlands pays fully (100%) the basic insurance for her employee
    and the half for wife and cildren. 
    This means that there is no one price for a single or a family (with or
    without kid(s). An employee with wife and 2 children has to pay 4 times
    the amount of a single, although some of this is paid by DEC.
    The basic insurance will normally give you not the full insurance
    package so the extra's have to be paid by the employee.
    
    Re: Smokers have to pay more.
    What about people that do risky sports in there own time ?
    
    Peter.
    

    re:30 and 33
    
    	I've said it before somewhere. You have health care providers and
    health care consumers. HMO's neither provide nor consume health care.
    Since they're in it for the money, *ANYTHING* they charge that does not
    go to the provider only adds to what we all pay for health care.
    
    	In the Canadian model, all people within a given Province are part
    of the same risk pool. You cannot be denied for any reason. Basically, 
    all health care costs are divided by the number of people and that is 
    what everyone pays for coverage. This keeps the coverage as low as 
    possible barring administative efficiency tweeks. I'm not sure if/how 
    they do "family coverage".
    
    	This is about the fairest possible way to share the costs. Yes,
    you'll be paying just as much as the person dying from a terminal
    disease requiring lots of care. Just because you're young, healthy, and
    single today doesn't mean that you won't be later in life. Adjusting 
    premiums based on life-styles will only add more administative costs
    than it's worth. It's to easy to lie (i.e. No, I don't smoke.).
    
    	Insurance companies would love to be able to weed out all the high
    health risk patients. They already do this to some degree now by not
    covering any pre-existing conditions. Again, this only contributes to
    the problem in the long run. This "long run" effect is what we're seeing
    and feeling today. 
    
    	I'm very skeptical that we'll ever see the above sort of system in 
    the US. The insurance industry is second in holdings only to the US 
    government. Politics and big money tend to go hand in hand. This kind of 
    system effectively eliminates the insurance companies in the health care 
    market. 
    
    	In order to even have a chance to keep the insurance companies in the 
    market, you'd have to sync up all insurance companies and health care 
    providers under a standard billing system. Hell, we're one company, and a 
    computer company at that, trying to sync up on standard company wide 
    automated processes. Anyone care to take a look at how long it's taking 
    just for us to do this ;-)
    	
    	Ray
    
    BTW - Those two Tylenol in the hospital were pretty expensive long
    before HMO's became popular. They may add to the problem, but they're
    not *the* problem.

re: longer age = high medical expenses

A doctor friend of mine told me something like 90% (or more!) of your medical
costs are incurred during your last 6 months of life, independent of age.  If
this think about it for awile, it makes sense. 

-mark

    Re: Many studies point to the positive influence on health
    of marriage and children.
    
    Actually, there's a positive influence for men and a negative
    influence for women.
    

    
    
    I agree with .0
    
    Let's see, Kaiser in N. Cal today charges ~$2.50/week for single
    but I believe jumps to ~$30.00/week for family; no indiv+spouse
    	option is avail. Do the math --- I mean that is an astronomical
    price gauging for folks  who are happy not being parents! 
    
    I wish that $30.00 would cover my cat's insurance, afterall he is
    my son!
    
    

    	Getting back to the base note, there should be a per person 
    premium that should be the same for everyone. So if one person was 
    $2.50, five people should be $12.50. This would be the fair way to do 
    it, but this makes too much sense to ever happen ;-)
    
    	Ray

    Re: .38
    
    Wrong, at least for my zip code.  Kaiser charges $4 vs $17
    weekly for an individual or family, respectively;  if you believe
    in the generic 2.x kids per family, there is some logic to
    that.  However, the Digital medical plan 2 is biased in the other
    direction here;  it charges $96 for an individual but $175 for a
    family weekly.
    
    Like you, I'm also waiting for MediCat to be an option :-)
    

    
    Why don't we just get a National heath care system, take the
    Individual's Company out of the loop altogether, and charge
    nothing weekly.  Pay $2 each time you go to the docta, and really
    spread the costs around.  Then I suppose we'll all be mad that we're
    paying for people who are on Welfare, or who have fallen off the 12
    weeks of unemployment, etc.
    
    Why is there a Marriage penalty for 2 earners over about $65K annual 
    salary.
    
    Why are some towns covering the Homo-Sexual partner under their City
    Employee jobs.  Hetero-Sexual partners that aren't married don't have
    their partners covered.  If I was without coverage, and new someone who
    worked for one of these cities, might I say I'm HomoSexual just to get
    coverage, or would I have to prove it?  I know HeterSexuals can get 
    married, HomoSexuals can't, so let's let them get married in the eyes
    of the law, don't have "special" breaks for them simply because they
    are gay.  
    
    Why is life so unfair?  It is, It isn't, it all depends on your
    perspective.
    
    
    And this too shall pass.
    
    /art

    
    
    art,
    
    it is not that life is unfair, it is just that paying the bill is
    unfair!
    
    frankly, taking care of our health should not a profit-making business
    in the first place. If we dig deeper, all of these discussions really 
    does not boil down to the quality of care you and I might get, what 
    really the cost of insurance, and that means profit margins for the 
    providers of insurance.
    

    
    Re .last
    
    >frankly, taking care of our health should not a profit-making business
    >in the first place. 
    
    What about supplying our food? Should food suppliers be able to make
    a profit? How about companies which make clothing? Can they make a
    profit? What about housing? Education? Transportation?
    
    What about computer companies that sell products/services to
    health care providers? Can they make a profit on those sales? After
    all this drives up the cost of health care.
    
    >If we dig deeper, all of these discussions really 
    >does not boil down to the quality of care you and I might get, what 
    >really the cost of insurance, and that means profit margins for the 
    >providers of insurance.
    
    What percentage of U.S. medical spending is represented by the
    profits of health care insurance?
    
    					Ed
    
    				 

    I think the US medical costs is roughly US$ 3000 per capita (per year),
    maybe even more. So, anything below ~$60/week for an individual is a
    deal, or $240/week for a family of four.
    

>                     <<< Note 4308.38 by AXPBIZ::WANNOOR >>>
>                    -< yep, not fair for us kidless folks. >-
>
>    
>    
>    I agree with .0
>    
>    Let's see, Kaiser in N. Cal today charges ~$2.50/week for single
>    but I believe jumps to ~$30.00/week for family; no indiv+spouse

Is that what Kaiser is charging, or is that the copayment is after
Digital's contribution?
Digital subsidizes the employee to a higher percentage of the fee
than for the employee's dependents.

- tom]

re: .39
>>    	Getting back to the base note, there should be a per person 
>>    premium that should be the same for everyone. So if one person was 
>>    $2.50, five people should be $12.50. This would be the fair way to do 
>>    it, but this makes too much sense to ever happen ;-)
    
    Seems reasonable for Digital to cover most of the _employees_ costs,
    but other than competitive marketplace pressures, why should they have
    any interest in covering the same level of costs for non-employees?
    
    If your spouse/children were making the same contribution to Digital's
    bottom line as you (the employee) are, then your proposal makes sense,
    and in fact isn't that what actually happens? ie if your spouse is also
    directly contributing to Digital's bottom line (ie is also an employee)
    then both you and they are enrolled as individuals at the same cost.
    
    However in most cases, the other members of an employee's family do not
    contribute directly to Digital's bottom line; indirectly perhaps they
    do, from the viewpoint of supporting the employee in life matters such
    that they can be productive employees, and secondarily from the view-
    point that an employee that is distracted by family health matters may
    be less productive. But neither of these reasons justifies the same
    level of investment by the company for _their_ health insurance costs.
    
    BTW, for those arguing for a per-person charge; call John Hancock and 
    ask about the COBRA costs for the DMP plans. Seems that Digital charges 
    for the DMP COBRA coverage on a per adult/child basis (however the HMO
    COBRA costs are quoted on the same individual/family basis).
    
    Dave

> Is that what Kaiser is charging ...

Let's not pick nits about the details.  To simplify everything: everyone
who sees this note can just send me $10 and we'll call it quits.  Okay?

___Pete

    re .47: But the question is, how much do you get additionally from
    Digital???   ;-)
    

    
    rep .42
    
    I tend to disagree on the profit motive.  I think you should make a
    profit on everything you do.  If you don't don't do it.
    
    If everybody works for a profit, whether it's returned in kind, with
    money, friendship, etc, then everybody is happy, and nobody feels taken
    advantage of.
    
    As for health care, it's kinda sad that people aren't covered and then
    don't go to the docta and then get real sick, and then some hospital
    takes care of them for free, and spreads the bill around to the ones
    who pay the bills.  My wife is from Norway and they have National
    health care.  They get seen, but there are long waits for office
    visits, and there is a rationing of what care is given to whom.
    I don't really want the government in the health care business, they
    will only screw it up, but we should do something to help those who
    don't have any coverage, exactly what is unclear to me!
    
    /art

Re: .38

>    I wish that $30.00 would cover my cat's insurance, afterall he is
>    my son!
    
Well, I'm not going to ask how you conceived him, but I think I saw something
like it in a movie once...But if you have the birth certificate to prove
you're the father, you can probably get your cat covered under the family
coverage option.

         
 Re .43
    
>  What about supplying our food? Should food suppliers be able to make
>  a profit? How about companies which make clothing? Can they make a
>  profit? What about housing? Education? Transportation?
    
   
  Seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between suppliers of
  food, clothing, housing, ... and health care.  Suppliers of products and
  services generally improve their profits by selling you more. One of the
  ways health care providers can significantly improve their profits is to
  deny consumers access to products and services.
  
    /bob
  
    
    				 

    
    
    .43 ed,
    
        .49 hopefully help explain the difference. In my view, there are
        a few functions that a government provides for its people; these
        are: basic healthcare, defense, education and maybe interstate
        commerce/transportation. In a way, I think our way of blind 
        capitalistic compliance and fear of anything that may smell or 
        look socialistic resulted in analogies like yours. There is 
        a fundamental difference in profiting from selling computer
        systems than determining whether one gets healthcare by rationing,
    	which is what paying premiums actually does.
    
    	.45 tom,
            those are out-of-pocket after the Digital subsidy. I had a
            chance  to check out COBRA rate 2 yrs ago, and it was about
    	    a lot more (triple digit/month, don't recall exactly) for
            indiv.
    
        .50 dipirro
    	    oops.... I suppose I should have said "My VIRTUAL son"???
            but seriously, have you seen how much vet services cost
            nowadays?
        

>>    I wish that $30.00 would cover my cat's insurance, afterall he is
>>    my son!
>    
>Well, I'm not going to ask how you conceived him, but I think I saw something
>like it in a movie once...But if you have the birth certificate to prove
>you're the father, you can probably get your cat covered under the family
>coverage option.

Hmmmmmmmm, if Ashikin can prove she's the "father," it'd be even more 
impressive than you thought!

			SQ

PS.  Since we have five of the little critters, I have to agree with her -- 
I'd love to have coverage for them.